'Violence, Lynching & Vigilantism Order Of The Day': Allahabad High Court Slams Casual FIRs Under UP Cow Slaughter Act

A bench of Justice Abdul Moin and Justice Abdhesh Kumar Chaudhary directed the Principal Secretary (Home) and the Director General of Police (DGP) to file their personal affidavits explaining why such FIRs are being lodged even though the provisions of the Act, 1955 are not attracted.

The bench also sought affidavits on the issue as to why the State Government has not yet issued a formal Government Order in compliance with the Supreme Court's directions in Tehseen S. Poonawalla v. Union of India (2018) to curb mob violence and vigilantism.

In its 17-page order, the Court said that despite clear law laid down more than six decades ago by the Allahabad High Court itself and reaffirmed by the Apex Court, police officers continue to file FIRs “left and right” under provisions of the 1955 Act, even in cases where no offence is made out.

The division bench made these observations while granting interim relief to one Rahul Yadav, booked under Sections 3, 5A , 8 of the 1955 Act and and Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, against any coercive action until further orders.

Case in brief

Yadav, the owner of a vehicle, stated that his driver took the vehicle on March 1, 2025, and did not return. Later, he learnt that an FIR had been registered after police allegedly found nine “progeny of the cow” tied in his vehicle, panting and bound by ropes.

However, the Court noted that no slaughter or maiming had taken place and that the animals were alive. It observed that there was no allegation of transportation outside Uttar Pradesh, which is a necessary condition for invoking Section 5-A of 1955 Act.

The Bench noted:

"Clearly, no offence is made out under Section 5-A of the Act, 1955. It is also not the case of the respondents that the petitioner indulged in slaughtering of the progeny of the cow inasmuch as the progeny of the cow has been found alive. Thus, Sections 3 and 8 of the Act are also not attracted".

Similarly, since the petitioner was only the owner of the vehicle and not the driver, Section 11 of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960 was also found inapplicable to the facts of the case. The Court thus granted relief to the petitioner.

High Court's significant observations

In its order, the bench expressed grave concern over the sheer number of petitions flooding the Court where individuals are falsely implicated under the Cow Slaughter Act despite no slaughter, injury or interstate transportation being involved.

"The matter cannot be treated to be so simple", the Court said, adding "inasmuch as this Court is deluged with such matters on the basis of First Information Reports being filed left and right by the authorities and complainants under the provisions of the Act, 1955".

The Bench said that as early as 1962, in Parasram Ji v. Imtiaz, the Allahabad High Court had held that mere preparation for slaughter of an animal is not an offence under the 1955 Act. Despite long-settled principles, the Bench lamented that FIRs continue to be filed without application of mind.

Thus, noting the 'casual' manner in which the provisions of the 1955 Act are being invoked, the bench sought the affidavits of the top officials.

HC's order seeks disclosure of action that is being taken against officials or complainants who file such casual FIRs, wasting “the precious time of both the police authorities and this Court”.

The Bench further asked the officials to explain why the State should not be directed to issue a Government Order ensuring that such frivolous FIRs are not filed under the Cow Slaughter Act in future.

HC flags mob vigilantism

Significantly, the High Court also linked the misuse of the Cow Slaughter Act to the rise of mob vigilantism in Uttar Pradesh. It referred to a recent case where vigilantes allegedly stopped a car and the vehicle later went missing.

The Court observed thus:

"…under the garb of the Act, 1955 is vigilantism which is being practiced by various persons…Violence, lynching and vigilantism is the order of the day…".

The Bench then referred extensively to Tehseen Poonawalla case, where the Supreme Court had issued comprehensive preventive, remedial and punitive directions to curb any kind of vigilantism and mob violence, holding that failure by State officials to comply would amount to "deliberate negligence and misconduct".

The Court, however, noted that despite the directions being issued by the Top Court about seven years back, it is not known as to what action has been taken by the State Government.

Noting that a circular in this regard was issued by the Director General of Police, the Court said the same cannot substitute a Government Order as the Government order is an expression of the executive power of the State and should reflect official policy and directions.

"...once the directions of the Apex Court are to the State Government, consequently, a Government order should have been issued in this regard which should reflect the official decision, policy or administrative directions of the Government inasmuch as the Government order is an expression of the executive power of the State under Article 162 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, prima facie the circular as issued by the Director General of Police does not conform to the direction as issued by the Apex Court."

The Court, therefore, directed that the personal affidavits of the Principal Secretary (Home) and the DGP must also specify what steps have been taken to implement the Supreme Court's directions in Tehseen S. Poonawalla and related cases.

Against this backdrop, the Court listed the matter again on November 7, 2025 and warned that it may consider imposing exemplary costs on the authorities if frivolous FIRs under the 1955 Act continue to be filed.

"On account of such frivolous FIRs, aggrieved persons are constrained to approach this Court, spending their valuable money and time, and the precious judicial time of the Court is also wasted in dealing with such cases which could have been nipped in the bud by the State itself", the Bench observed.

If the affidavits are not filed within three weeks, both the Principal Secretary (Home) and the DGP have been directed to appear in person before the Court with records to assist the Bench. 

Case title - Rahul Yadav vs. State Of U.P Thru. Secy. Home Lko. And 3 Others

Click Here To Read/Download Order